Inserjovem and Reage Initiatives: A Preventive Action

DISCUSSION PAPER FROM HOST COUNTRY EXPERT : PORTUGAL

Inserjovem and Reage Initiatives: A Preventive Action by Luis Gomes Centeno,CIDEC – Centro Interdisciplinar de Estudos Económicos, Lisbon

Part A: Description of the main elements of the policy A.1 Background In 1998 the Portuguese Government introduced the INSERJOVEM and REAGE initiatives which are closely linked with the process that led to the Luxembourg Summit agreement and the establishment of a co-ordinated European Employment Strategy (EES). These initiatives were part of the 1998 Portuguese Action Plan for Employment developed in the context of the EES. INSERJOVEM and REAGE (which stand respectively for “Young Insertion” and “React”) intend to be structured approaches to cope with the inflows of unemployed persons using the Public Employment Services (PES). The initiatives directly addresses Guidelines 1 and 2 of the EU Employment Guidelines. These approaches are, primarily, preventive action tools in a more global policy framework of moving from passive to active employment policies. In this sense, they can be seen as the building blocks upon which the activity of the Portuguese Public Employment Services (PES) should be built. As in several other European countries, Portuguese PES have tried for a long time to develop actions that allow an individualised approach to unemployed persons in the search for solutions that help to match demand and supply in the labour market. It is well known that coping with individual approaches can easily lead to a wide variety of behaviour and performance by PES actors, according to personal responses to general and individual problems, or even to the theoretical and practical attitudes of employment officers. These variety of performances can generate efficiency and effectiveness problems in PES management, some of which have been widely recognised in the context of Portugal. Even if these performance effects are not present, there are always difficult problems when trying to evaluate results and efforts when unstructured individual approaches are used. There have been growing qualitative problems in the Portuguese labour market, although from a quantitative point of view employment problems have been gradually declining. The problems arise both from the under-qualification of the majority of the work-force and the changes in the labour market, demanding more qualifications and more active behaviour in the search for opportunities. As a result, the Portuguese labour market authorities felt the need for a comprehensive, integrated and at the same time individualised working method. EC Peer Review

Inserjovem and Reage Initiatives: A Preventive Action, Portugal

1


These approaches (in fact there is only one approach with time-scale differences, as we will see below) have been developed to achieve an integrated approach, which could be used as an individualised tool that could be adapted to the specific characteristics, needs and aims of the job-seeker as well as to the environment s/he is faced with. INSERJOVEM and REAGE have been established as means of fundamentally restructuring the working methods of Portuguese PES, unifying their approaches and setting benchmarks to be achieved and goals against with their performance could be evaluated. The Portuguese labour market can be briefly characterised as follows. On the one hand, there is a very favourable situation regarding employment (with growing employment levels and a shrinking unemployment rate), as can be easily seen from the data presented in Part D of this paper. On the other hand there are structural weaknesses in the Portuguese work-force arising from a lack of education and qualifications, imposing serious employability problems, both in the quality and sustainability of the jobs and in the turn-over of the workforce. Another important aspect of the background of the initiatives is the method for their implementation. A typical top-down approach, launching and legally enforcing the new working method by the statutory nature of the National Employment Plan of which it is a innovative measure, has not been taken. Instead, the option has been for a gradual introduction alongside the integration of the Employment Centres in the framework of Territorial Employment Pacts or Regional Networks for Employment. In 1998 three Territorial Employment Pacts were established in Portugal and a decision was taken to launch the Regional Networks for Employment. These Regional Networks for Employment (RNE) are seen as a method to promote co-ordinated interventions in areas with a similar socio-economic identity, with the objective of solving employment and qualification problems. The RNE are public and private partnerships, that involve a large number of actors from the local representatives of Portuguese Government and Ministries, the local governments, trade unions, employers associations, local development organisations, NGOs, schools and I&D institutions and significant enterprises at regional level. The main objective is to co-ordinate existing structures, initiatives and networks in order to maximise the results from local and regional initiatives, setting a new dynamic derived from common objectives of local and regional development. A total of 34 RNE are to be active by the end of 2000 covering all the Portuguese Continental territory and involving a very significant number of partners.

EC Peer Review


2


This shows that INSERJOVEM and REAGE are much more then mere internal working procedures directed to Employment Specialists and Vocational Guidance Counsellors (the basic members of the so called Integration Teams that are responsible for developing the Personal Employment Plans together with the job-seeker). In fact the initiatives are intended to be an (important) part of an externally-oriented approach to active employment policies, in which partnerships and strong links with the economic and social fabric are key components. The difficulties encountered by PES in developing close relations with the social and economic environment were widely recognised, and the initiatives have been targeted at overcoming these difficulties. The third characteristic that is important to highlight in an assessment of the initiatives is prevention of the most damaging consequences of Long Term Unemployment (LTU), which are discouragement and an ever growing separation from the labour market that it imposes on job-seekers. With the setting up of mandatory time scales to activation, the aim is to ensure that inflows in unemployment receive an early answer (either to obtain a direct or deferred placement). Besides handling the flow of new registered job-seekers, there is a file management procedure that aims to provide in time an answer to every registered unemployed person, providing activation specific measures proposed even to “sleeping”registered job-seekers. Three basic characteristics define INSERJOVEM and REAGE initiatives: • The first is that it is an integrated and individualised intervention, coping with the difficulties of Portuguese PES, providing new tools and methods for the design of Individual Employment Plans for the job-seekers; • The second is that it is an externally-oriented working approach, its implementation accompanying the integration of Employment Centres in Territorial Employment Pacts and Regional Networks for Employment (both partnerships for local development and employment promotion); • The third characteristic is that it is an activation tool that prevents or minimises LTU situations, either by early preventive actions with inflows, or by insertion path provision for those already in LTU stocks.

EC Peer Review


3


A.2

The goals and target groups of the policy

The goals of the initiatives are to provide an effective response towards employment (direct or deferred) to every young unemployed (under 25) before s/he is registered for 6 months in the case of INSERJOVEM and to every adult before s/he is registered for 12 months in the case of REAGE. In order to obtain these goals the unemployed have to be identified and called up for the preparation of Individual Employment Plans before they reach the 3 months of registering in the case of youngsters and the 6 months in the case of adults. An identification procedure based on the duration of the registering and a summary risk evaluation, based in an Integration Difficulty Prognostic Grid, is performed to support the implementation of the method. Priorities have been set up as follows: For young people 1st priority: job seekers who have been registered for 3 months or less, as well as those who are identified in the flow as being at risk; 2nd priority: new job seekers who appear in the flow; 3rd priority: young people who have been registered for more than 3 months. For Adults 1st priority: job seekers who have been registered for 6 months or less, as well as those who are identified in the flow as being at risk; 2nd priority: new job seekers who appear in the flow; 3rd priority: adults who have been registered for more than 6 months. It is relevant to highlight that the Integration Difficulty Prognostic Grid measures factors such as: age, schooling level, professional experience, qualification level and specific factors like handicapped persons, former drug addicts, ex-convicted and ethnic minorities.

EC Peer Review


4


A.3

The legal and financial provisions to implement the policy

Being internal procedures of the PES, the initiatives do not require specific legal provisions. Also they do not require specific significant financial provision, because they use human resources that already exist, and the specific actions implied by the Individual Employment Plans take place within existing training or employment programmes. In reality, INSERJOVEM and REAGE have direct costs because the unemployed people who are involved in the preparation of their Individual Employment Plans are entitled to meal allowances and travel expenses when called to the Employment Centres1. However, these costs are not significant in the overall budget of the PES. The increase of activities (training, technical interventions, etc.) involved in the implementation of the plans also means an increase in the overall expenditure of the PES, in the personnel budget and in the active measures, but they cannot be considered as additional expenses incurred by the initiatives, because they had to be made anyway. In fact INSERJOVEM and REAGE serve as means of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of such expenditures.

A.4

Institutional arrangements and procedures of implementation

The implementation procedures and the institutional arrangements are described in detail in the document prepared by the Portuguese Government.

1

Formerly these expenses were only supported by the PES in the case of LTU people called to Employment Centres.

EC Peer Review


5


Part B: The results so far B.1

The quantitative results of the policy so far, in relation to the baseline situation and to the goals and targets

Four dimensions of the results so far can be highlighted: 1. the overall results and possible impacts, using the standardised indicators of the Guidelines; 2. the quantitative elements provided by the initiative’s implementation; 3. the views of the unemployed participating in the initiatives; 4. the evaluation provided by the PES actors. B.1.1 Baseline constraints The baseline situation has been presented so far mainly in relation to qualitative problems and targets.In fact there is no evidence of hard indicators for some of the problems addressed by the initiatives before they were implemented. On the other hand, macro indicators about the labour market are both the result of the structure of Portugal’s socio-economic fabric and its short term positive situation. They cannot be strongly influenced by INSERJOVEM and REAGE, nor can the net effects of the initiatives be realistically identified. Seen another way, the overall labour market situation has strongly influenced the assessment of the results obtained, in positive and negative senses.We will discuss these influences along with the assessment that follows, but it is important that we highlight at this point the following aspects: The ever reducing unemployment rate in the period of evaluation has enabled most of the more easily employable persons in the work-force to easily find a job for themselves or rotate from job to job with no great difficulty. This leaves the PES with a narrowing margin of problem-situations of varied nature, implying a stronger effort to match employment supply and demand. This is a negative impact in the possible evaluation of the effects of the initiatives. On the other hand a nearly (some say below) full employment situation makes it harder for employers to satisfy their needs in the market. If, for a long time, the PES in Portugal have been seen as residual actors with a market share of a low single digit, it is noticeable that the employment supply that it deals with is consistently growing. So a larger number of opportunities are available to PES to promote placements under INSERJOVEM and REAGE. It is a positive effect, but it is difficult to tell which are net effects of the initiatives or mere substitution effects due to the lack of demand for employment. Dead weight effects can also be accounted by the strong positive dynamic of job creation. The development of the “third sector” in Portugal has been significant in recent years. Although we must rely on rough “guesstimates” to evaluate the situation, it is clear that a large number of new jobs have been created in non profit organisations, many of them based on public and EU grants. Some of these jobs have a strong occupational nature and are not self-sufficient. Taking into account that these institutions from the Social Economy are keen to participate in employment EC Peer Review


6


oriented partnerships, some could be found in the development of INSERJOVEM and REAGE partnership initiatives. The sustainability of jobs provided in this framework might be an issue. Taking into account these three issues, we can start to exame the available evidence. B.1.2

Evolution according to standardised indicators of the Guidelines

We will follow in this point the elements provided by the “Joint Employment Report 2000” COM(2000)551, issued in Brussels the 6.9.2000. We will also provide provisional indicators for Portugal for the first semester of the year 2000 made available for this assessment by the Portuguese Government. As an overall assessment we may note that from 1998 to 2000 all the indicators show improvement, in some cases an impressive one. If we take the Policy Input indicators for Guidelines 1 and 2, namely the indicator of effort2 and the rate of non compliance3, which are indicators directly addressed by INSERJOVEM and REAGE, for the years 1998 to 20004 the results are mixed. In the case of the youngsters, and assessing directly INSERJOVEM initiative, we may highlight that a strong improvement has been obtained in the rate of non compliance, passing from 33.4 in 98 to 5.7 in 2000, with better performance among men. On the other hand the indicator of effort has mildly worsened, passing from 35.3 in 98 to a lower 32.1 in 99, but has fully recovered in 2000 recording a 35.8 figure. The next figure presents the available data.

40

35,3

32,1

35,8

33,4

30 18,7

20

5,7

10 0 Indicator of effort 1998

Indicator of non compliance 1999

2000

Figure 1 – Indicators of effort and non compliance, Guideline 1, 1998 to 2000

The share of young/adult unemployed becoming unemployed in month X and having started an individual action plan before reaching 6/12 months unemployment. 3 The share of young/adult becoming unemployed in month X, still unemployed in months x+6/12 and having not started an individual action plan. 4 See Table 3 of the Statistical Annex to the Joint Employment Report 2000.

2

EC Peer Review


7


If we take the same indicators for Guideline 2, and assessing directly the REAGE initiative, the results a worsening in 1999 but full recovery in the first semester of 2000. The following table show the relevant data available. 40

35

31,5

36,3

30

21,2

20

14,5

11,1

10 0 Indicator of effort 1998

Indicator of non compliance 1999

2000

Figure 2 - Indicators of effort and non compliance, Guideline 2, 98/99

These results must be interpreted in two ways. On the one hand, in 1999 the Oporto Metropolitan Area RNE entered the initiative, with much harder employability problems to be dealt with, and a significant number of unemployed. Secondly the problems of non answer to the calls from the Employment Centres become a significant constraint on efforts to start actions. By mid 2000 most of these problems become better controlled and a clear improvement of the input indicators can be seen. There are, therefore, clear arguments in favour of the success of the initiatives. Although these cannot be directly addressed to INSERJOVEM and REAGE initiatives, if we take into account the harmonised output indicators for Guidelines 1 and 25, results are also positive for the country performance. The following Figure shows the data portrayed in the referred sources6. 25 20 15

23,8 17,3

20,2 15,9 12,3

12,1

10 5 0 Young

Adult 1998

1999

2000

Figure 3 – Inflows into long term unemployment, output indicator Gl 1 and 2, 98/99

Although some worsening has been shown in 1999, performance has clearly improved in the 1st semester of 2000. The rate of inflow into long-term unemployment measured by the share of young/adult persons who are still unemployed at the end of month X+6/12 without any break. 6 See Table 2 of the Statistical Annex for the Joint Employment Report 2000. 5

EC Peer Review


8


In any case, some caution must be exercised in a direct assessment of INSERJOVEM and REAGE based on the data provided. Two points, at least must be stressed. Firstly, the deadweight effect above mentioned derived from the “worsening of the quality” of the registered unemployed making active policy efforts much harder and less fruitful. In order to achieve the results a more than proportional effort has been developed by the PES. Clearly a better knowledge of, and increasing familiarity with, the use of the INSERJOVEM and REAGE tools have facilitated this. Secondly, the coverage of the country’s Employment Centres was gradual. In 98 only 11 Networks and 3 Pacts were in action, representing 33 Employment Centres. In 1999 these figures were enlarged to another 9 networks and 24 Centres (making a total of 20 Networks and 57 centres). By mid 2000 these figures were 23 Networks, 3 Pacts and 63 Centres. The full coverage of the country will be achieved at the end of 2000 with a total of 34 Networks, 3 Pacts, involving the existing 87 Employment Centres. B.1.3

Quantitative results provided by the implementation of the initiatives

A draft version of an evaluation in 1999 of INSERJOVEM and REAGE initiatives performed by the Portuguese PES, the Institute of Employment and Vocational Training, is available. This evaluation covers 16 Networks and 3 Pacts formalised by June 1999, covering 49 Employment Centres already applying the methodology, and a total of 55 863 unemployed that have seen a Personal Employment Plan created and agreed with them during 1999. A larger number of plans have been signed but those whose inscription has been cancelled afterwards for a “no show”or other reason were excluded. From these, 16 863 (30%) have been under INSERJOVEM and 39 000 (70%) under REAGE. For both initiatives about 65% of the plans were for women and 35% for men.

Inserjovem - Men

5765 25143

11098

Inserjovem - Women Reage - Men

13857

Reage - Women

Figure 4 – Share of INSERJOVEM and REAGE by gender 1999

But one of the most striking characteristics of the persons involved in the initiatives is the very low level of schooling that they have in general. It should be noted that more than 55% of the people in REAGE initiative in 1999 had 4 or less years of schooling and that about 75% had 6 or less years of schooling.

EC Peer Review


9


Naturally the public for INSERJOVEM has a better preparation but it is also noticeable that 6% of them has 4 or less years of schooling, and since compulsory schooling is 9 years from 1986, 70% of the unemployed covered has this level or lower.

60,0% 50,0% 40,0% 30,0% 20,0% 10,0% 0,0% = 45

Figure 6 – Age structure of the participants in INSERJOVEM and REGE initiative7

But the most significant group of participants is the 25 to 44 years segment. It must be stressed that although relatively young the participants have a significant lack of education achievements. Moreover, an important element is that, comparably, women have higher school qualifications in INSERJOVEM and lower in REAGE.

7

Those in the less than 25 years of age correspond to INSERJOVEM target group and the other to REAGE target group.

EC Peer Review


10


For the Plans developed in 1999 the largest number have been signed with persons looking for a new job (84%) and 3 in every 4 were not eligible for any unemployment compensation. Another important feature of the people benefiting from the assessed initiatives is the duration of their inscription on the PES, data that are presented in the following table. 100,0%

81,1%

80,0% 60,0%

45,3%

Inserjovem 30,0%

40,0%

11,9%

20,0%

Reage 16,4% 4,4%

8,3% 2,7%

12 to 24

> 24

0,0% 45) job-seekers. Studies carried out in Portugal show that recent developments in labour market performance place special stress on this segment of job-seekers, derived namely from the new human resources strategies developed by enterprises and new technical requirements for job-seekers. We have seen, from the evaluation of REAGE, that it is less effective with unemployed above 45 years of age. The question to be discussed is if it is useful to have specific treatment for this segment with more targeted and specifically designed outputs. It is clear that the individualising of employment paths is always possible under REAGE, but the question is if a more time consuming effort and less likely results could justify a different benchmark for this target. In Portugal a specific programme for the very young job-seekers without compulsory education achievement has been established (Under 21 Initiative), providing a special response that combines educational programmes and vocational training. A third question that seems to be pertinent is to know how these intensive methodologies would perform in a larger inflow of job-seekers and a less favourable situation in the labour market than those experienced in Portugal in the last two years.

EC Peer Review


18


Part D: Annexes: Labour Market Data

1992

Employment Anual variation % Employment Rate % Employment rate (Women) %

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

4340,7 -

4255,2 -2,0

4251,5 -0,1

4225,1 -0,6

4250,5 0,6

4331,8 1,9

4526,4 -

4612,4 1,9

-

-

-

62,2

62,3

63,7

66,6

67,6

-

-

-

54,5

54,8

56,3

58,4

60,0

Share of women in employment %

44,1

44,5

44,7

44,8

44,9

45,1

44,7

45,3

Young employment rate %

45,1

40,4

37,9

35,6

35,6

38,1

42,9

43,5

Share of young in employment %

15,8

14,6

14,1

13,2

12,9

13,0

14,4

14,1

Unemployment Anual variation %

186,9 -

248,3 32,9

312,2 25,7

325,4 4,2

332,4 2,2

313,1 -5,8

239,2 -

215,0 -10,1

Unemployment rate %

4,1

5,5

6,8

7,2

7,3

6,7

5,0

4,5

Women unemployment rate

4,9

6,5

7,8

8,0

8,2

7,6

6,2

5,1

Share of woman in unemployment %

53,0

53,2

51,7

50,7

51,2

50,9

56,4

51,9

Young unemployment rate %

9,9

12,7

14,7

16,1

16,7

14,8

10,3

8,8

Sharea of young in unenployment %

40,5

36,4

33,1

32,9

32,9

31,4

31,3

29,3

LTU (> 12 months) Anual variation

48,5 -

72,8 50,1

106,7 46,6

128,0 20,0

139,4 8,9

136,5 -2,1

101,7 -

80,7 -20,6

Share of LTU in unemployment %

25,9

29,3

34,2

39,3

42,0

43,6

42,5

37,6

Woman LTU Rate % Share of woman in LTU % Source: INE, Inquérito ao Emprego Note: from 1998 onwards new serie

1,4

2,0

2,8

3,2

3,5

3,3

2,7

2,0

57,3

56,6

53,4

52,1

52,0

51,5

56,8

54,0

Table 1 – Employment and unemployment data

1990 Value

1991 Hom. Var.%

1992

Hom. Var.%

Value

Value

1993 Hom. Var.%

Value

1994 Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

1995

1996

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

1997

Hom. Var.%

Value

1998

Hom. Var.%

Value

1999

Hom. Var.%

Value

2000 Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

Jan

318 652

-4,2

309 014

-3,0

308 611

-0,1

350 517

13,6

386 634

10,3

423 970

9,7

471 709

11,3

470 783

-0,2

429 851

-8,7

390 536

-9,1

350 126

Feb

323 099

-4,3

306 466

-5,1

312 698

2,0

358 871

14,8

396 218

10,4

429 651

8,4

484 163

12,7

480 583

-0,7

430 137

-10,5

385 272

-10,4

347 412

-10,3 -9,8

Mar

321 404

-2,9

301 116

-6,3

312 764

3,9

360 505

15,3

398 854

10,6

429 927

7,8

486 932

13,3

472 092

-3,0

419 611

-11,1

378 230

-9,9

340 398

-10,0

Apr

317 544

1,0

297 878

-6,2

312 684

5,0

353 019

12,9

398 363

12,8

430 425

8,0

487 640

13,3

467 417

-4,1

410 251

-12,2

369 154

-10,0

331 495

-10,2

May

307 744

-0,2

288 900

-6,1

308 862

6,9

339 964

10,1

395 677

16,4

423 665

7,1

477 651

12,7

451 761

-5,4

399 039

-11,7

358 542

-10,1

323 058

-9,9

Jun

300 121

-0,5

284 117

-5,3

308 259

8,5

332 843

8,0

390 433

17,3

419 288

7,4

465 347

11,0

435 048

-6,5

388 508

-10,7

349 520

-10,0

314 958

-9,9

Jul

298 696

-0,5

284 184

-4,9

310 023

9,1

333 112

7,4

386 628

16,1

421 076

8,9

455 314

8,1

428 948

-5,8

385 396

-10,2

344 678

-10,6

314 600

-8,7

Aug

296 356

0,0

283 619

-4,3

315 475

11,2

334 597

6,1

383 610

14,6

420 530

9,6

452 738

7,7

420 921

-7,0

385 002

-8,5

338 793

-12,0

312 476

-7,8

Sep

295 811

-0,6

286 723

-3,1

319 216

11,3

335 412

5,1

390 336

16,4

425 432

9,0

451 174

6,1

418 691

-7,2

390 980

-6,6

337 896

-13,6

316 931

-6,2

Oct

300 214

-0,7

289 913

-3,4

325 037

12,1

345 925

6,4

402 761

16,4

436 663

8,4

457 126

4,7

423 183

-7,4

395 256

-6,6

342 665

-13,3

Nov

303 631

-1,5

295 572

-2,7

333 783

12,9

355 599

6,5

411 942

15,8

446 926

8,5

462 511

3,5

424 250

-8,3

389 851

-8,1

344 751

-11,6

Dec

304 166

-1,6

296 563

-2,5

339 293

14,4

365 072

7,6

410 192

12,4

451 801

10,1

460 244

1,9

420 756

-8,6

384 058

-8,7

341 274

-11,1

Month

1990

Average

307 287

1991 -1,4

1992

293 672

-4,4

317 225

1993 8,0

347 120

1994 9,4

395 971

1995 14,1

429 946

1996 8,6

467 712

1997 8,8

442 869

1998 -5,3

400 662

1999 -9,5

356 776

2000 -11,0

327 939

Table 2 – Registered unemployment at the end of the period

EC Peer Review


19

-8,1


1990

1991

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Jan

10 470

8,9

7 907

Feb

9 833

-1,1

Mar

10 781

1992

Hom. Var.%

1993

1994

Value

Hom. Var.%

Hom. Var.%

-24,5

8 442

6,8

6 679

-20,9

4 859

7 389

-24,9

8 515

15,2

7 143

-16,1

2,7

7 749

-28,1

8 475

9,4

7 187

1995

Hom. Var.%

1996

1997

1998

1999

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

-27,2

5 775

18,9

7 513

30,1

8 318

10,7

9 168

10,2

11 941

4 918

-31,1

5 768

17,3

7 163

24,2

10 074

40,6

10 608

5,3

-15,2

5 590

-22,2

6 037

8,0

7 444

23,3

11 349

52,5

12 024

Value

Value

2000 Value

Hom. Var.%

30,2

12 257

2,6

13 014

22,7

14 164

8,8

5,9

13 610

13,2

15 494

13,8

Value

Hom. Var.%

Apr

10 085

-7,5

8 574

-15,0

8 745

2,0

6 303

-27,9

5 785

-8,2

7 041

21,7

8 533

21,2

11 250

31,8

13 078

16,2

14 511

11,0

16 152

11,3

May

10 692

-6,3

9 023

-15,6

8 711

-3,5

5 913

-32,1

6 003

1,5

7 646

27,4

8 780

14,8

11 248

28,1

14 057

25,0

14 994

6,7

16 569

10,5

Jun

9 758

-20,1

9 239

-5,3

8 045

-12,9

6 087

-24,3

6 139

0,9

8 966

46,0

9 032

0,7

11 768

30,3

14 456

22,8

15 383

6,4

16 635

8,1

Jul

9 605

-23,0

9 247

-3,7

7 670

-17,1

6 529

-14,9

6 027

-7,7

9 595

59,2

8 759

-8,7

11 050

26,2

14 293

29,3

14 359

0,5

15 873

10,5

Aug

9 308

-23,9

9 138

-1,8

7 510

-17,8

6 738

-10,3

6 664

-1,1

9 875

48,2

8 946

-9,4

11 591

29,6

14 417

24,4

13 833

-4,1

16 057

16,1

Sep

9 932

-12,5

9 545

-3,9

8 443

-11,5

7 398

-12,4

7 039

-4,9

9 761

38,7

9 935

1,8

12 028

21,1

15 567

29,4

14 457

-7,1

17 864

23,6

Oct

8 902

-17,6

9 453

6,2

7 994

-15,4

6 944

-13,1

6 580

-5,2

9 431

43,3

9 896

4,9

12 088

22,2

14 656

21,2

14 340

-2,2

Nov

8 559

-19,3

9 441

10,3

7 532

-20,2

6 012

-20,2

6 185

2,9

8 411

36,0

9 704

15,4

11 762

21,2

12 249

4,1

13 191

7,7

Dec

7 726

-20,6

8 509

10,1

6 983

-17,9

4 989

-28,6

5 126

2,7

7 288

42,2

7 775

6,7

9 461

21,7

10 648

12,5

11 160

4,8

Month

1990

Average

1991

9 638

-12,2

1992

8 768

-9,0

1993

8 089

-7,7

1994

6 494

-19,7

1996

1995

5 910

-9,0

7 966

34,8

1997

8 623

8,2

10 999

1998 27,5

1999

12 935

17,6

13 733

2000 6,2

15 674

Table 3 – Job supply in PES per month

1990 Value

1991

Hom. Var.%

Value

1992

Hom. Var.%

Value

1993

Hom. Var.%

Value

1994

Hom. Var.%

1995

1996

1997

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

1998

Hom. Var.%

1999

2000

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

Value

Hom. Var.%

Jan

2 914

-11,2

2 612

-10,4

2 180

-16,5

1 846

-15,3

2 524

36,7

3 161

25,2

3 266

3,3

2 820

-13,7

3 565

26,4

4 792

34,4

5 677

18,5

Feb

2 993

12,4

2 397

-19,9

2 120

-11,6

2 004

-5,5

2 381

18,8

2 998

25,9

3 185

6,2

2 814

-11,6

4 516

60,5

5 696

26,1

6 464

13,5

Mar

2 351

-12,7

1 965

-16,4

1 936

-1,5

2 104

8,7

2 659

26,4

3 024

13,7

3 715

22,9

3 513

-5,4

5 593

59,2

5 631

0,7

5 769

2,5

Apr

2 694

5,7

2 302

-14,6

2 473

7,4

2 470

-0,1

2 970

20,2

3 681

23,9

3 907

6,1

4 441

13,7

5 491

23,6

6 068

10,5

6 016

-0,9

May

2 668

1,8

2 537

-4,9

2 367

-6,7

2 555

7,9

3 401

33,1

4 364

28,3

4 484

2,7

5 299

18,2

5 740

8,3

6 522

13,6

6 882

5,5

Jun

2 496

-3,7

2 384

-4,5

2 398

0,6

2 486

3,7

3 386

36,2

4 165

23,0

4 236

1,7

4 983

17,6

5 385

8,1

6 330

17,5

6 472

2,2

Jul

2 150

-14,1

2 154

0,2

2 412

12,0

2 059

-14,6

3 134

52,2

4 577

46,0

3 862

-15,6

5 117

32,5

4 752

-7,1

5 508

15,9

5 888

6,9

Aug

2 529

12,1

1 970

-22,1

1 965

-0,3

2 478

26,1

2 890

16,6

3 818

32,1

3 226

-15,5

4 478

38,8

4 000

-10,7

5 649

41,2

5 164

-8,6

Sep

2 677

15,1

2 403

-10,2

2 713

12,9

2 895

6,7

3 279

13,3

4 634

41,3

4 782

3,2

6 894

44,2

4 903

-28,9

6 760

37,9

6 495

-3,9

Oct

2 606

-3,2

2 665

2,3

2 601

-2,4

2 624

0,9

2 985

13,8

4 582

53,5

4 514

-1,5

5 893

30,5

5 602

-4,9

6 173

10,2

Nov

2 356

-19,5

1 941

-17,6

2 710

39,6

2 865

5,7

3 190

11,3

4 638

45,4

3 790

-18,3

5 249

38,5

6 348

20,9

6 367

0,3

Dec

2 079

-21,1

2 155

3,7

2 023

-6,1

2 082

2,9

2 231

7,2

3 112

39,5

3 323

6,8

3 320

-0,1

4 449

34,0

4 918

10,5

TOTAL

30 513

27 485

27 898

28 468

35 030

46 754

Month

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

Average

2 543

-3,9

2 290

-9,9

2 325

1,5

2 372

2,0

2 919

23,1

3 896

46 290

54 821

1996 33,5

3 858

60 344

1997 -1,0

4 568

70 414

1998 18,4

5 029

1999 5 868

10,1

2000 16,7

6 092

3,8

Table 4 Placements of unemployed by Public Employment Services

Education level/year

1985

1991

1994

1997

Primary

74.2%

75.1%

77.7%

72.0%

Secondary

10.2%

11.4%

11.7%

17.3%

Tertiary

3.5%

4.2%

5.0%

6.1%

Source: Ministry of Labour and Solidarity Table 5 – Share of total workforce by education level (1985–97)

EC Peer Review


20

14,1


Primary education level indicates those within the workforce holding an education level up to a certificate of completion of compulsory education (9 years) including those without any degree. Secondary level indicates those within the workforce completing upper secondary education (12 years) and tertiary level indicates the percentage of the workforce holding a university degree (ranging from 2-6 years beyond upper secondary). In 1997, nearly ¾ of the total workforce had only completed the primary education level (72%). Those within the workforce who have completed either secondary or tertiary levels represent a low proportion, albeit a growing one. Between 1985 and 1997, the proportion of the workforce who had completed secondary level education has grown from 10.2% to 17.3%. For tertiary education, the proportion of the workforce with this level has grown 3.5% to 6.1% during the same period. Graph 1 – Share of total workforce by education level (1985–97) 100% Share on Total Workforce (%)

90% 80% 70% Tertiary

60%

Secondary

50%

Primary

40%

Other

30% 20% 10% 0%

1985

1991

1994

1997

Year

EC Peer Review


21